It is funny to read
the leftist critics of Alvin Toffler. They always either
bring up the Tofflers' support of Newt Gingrich or
they just copy some redneck attacks
on Tofflers who hate Tofflersí
support of liberty within the new social
developments of our world today.

The reason for Tofflersí support of Newt Gingrich follows the view of some futurists in the U.S. who believe Republican
Party is more separate and has less old
shackles in its *economic* policies, from the industrial *establishment*
of the North, the auto industry and labor, etc, and they think it can
better go with the new directions of futurist plans than old the traditional
democratic party apparatus. The Democratic Party was close to the
13 statesí early development and U.S.
industry was built on their plans. Today
that industry *is* the smoke-stack industry and it is the main
block to the development of new economy and has to be fought with to make
headway for the new economy. If one looks closely, still the US
government basically supports the
smoke-stack industry, who lobby best, and the fall of dot-coms never got any
government help, whereas the auto industry and oil and
airlines have been getting help from government for very long.

Personally I think it
was Tofflers' error to view Newt Gingrich as an ally and I think both Democratic Party and
Republican Party have potential for growth
and at the same time have the problems that are noted. The Republicans
are reactionary on many social issues and democrats are reactionary
on many economic issues, but even that is not always true and is different from
faction to faction. The same I think on Greens that are
reactionary on many economic development policies.

Then one may ask why
futurists do not make their own political party in the U.S.
They think it is not the right thing to do and think it is best
to work within the Democratic and Republican parties, although pursuing
their own economic, social and political objectives, which both parties
allow. Personally I think it would have been better if they created
a separate futurist political party, but this is not something for me to decide. The futurists who actively pursue their
ideas in the U.S.
think otherwise and I respect their decision. I
am sure they have their own reason not
doing it but my opinion is otherwise.

Finally I hope Iranian
intellectuals to read the original works of Tofflers
and Naisbit and others rather than reading some
redneck authors who like to call new
ideas in the U.S.
as hippie, etc. In fact one reason Tofflers and their associates are a lot in suits (www.toffler.com) has been to deal with this
kind of notations of progressive ideas in
the US by rednecks and it is funny some leftists post
these redneck type posts as analysis of Tofflers.

Daniel Bell, Alvin
Toffler, and John Naisbit have the most following in all the industries that are post-industrial in
the US, and other parts of the world,
and their ideas have helped the growth of these *real*
developments, unlike the leftist nonsense which has no hearing
anywhere in the world, and are repeating the same old slogans, who like the
Islamists, do not want to forget the glory of
their past, and insult the countries that are making the real progress, and
forget the reality of Old Soviet Union, Eastern
Block, China, Vietnam, Cambodia, North Korea,
Syria, Iraq, etc, the places they themselves do not
choose to live, and they enjoy the progress and democracy
of the West, with all its shortcomings, *but* they advocate for Iran and Iranian people and intellectuals the junk imaginations
of some leftist leftovers of the West,
who have been behind the train of rapid change, and
absolutely have *no* significance in any developments in the West,
at least in the last 25 years.